advertisement


P&O Ferries Scandal

messengerman said:
Late to this one but yup.

I think there is confusion about "breaking" the law. This is not a criminal thing. The sackings were evidently unlawful (the process was not the process legally prescribed) but that doesn't mean that the workers are not sacked nor does it mean they will be re-instated. Nor does it mean directors will be fined or imprisoned or debarred. Instead it means that the courts will (if asked) order that compensation is paid to cover the wages those workers would've earned over the time it would've taken for the employer to follow a lawful process. ie however long it would've taken to warn, consult and consider alternatives to redundancy. So maybe something like a months pay. Probably not more than two. There are no hard and fast guidelines. Unless the effected workers are pregnant in which case the compensation awarded can (and will) be a lot more.

P&O may have figured that this is cheaper than following lawful prescribed practice or perhaps (and I've experienced this) the entitled foreign owners simply had no patience with European style employment law and insisted local management ignore it. Or both those things.

Either way breaking the law should never be cheaper than following it and while we can rightly criticise management the government also need to look seriously at reforming the penalty arrangements for breaches.



Is this new? Certainly never used to be expressed like this. Typically payouts for unlawful dismissal (process fail) cover only wages that would've accrued over the course of a lawful process (so weeks rather than months). Unfair dismissal claims (and redundancy pay) are capped at (roughly) 1-1.5 weeks pay for every complete year you've worked there (depending on age) . Only the first £544 in weekly pay counts. And only the first 20 years of service. So if you're paid more or worked longer than that it is ignored in the calculation. Regardless the total is never going to be anywhere near a years pay. Max possible is about £16k but only if you earn at least £25k, are near retirement age when sacked and worked there for 20 years. Unless proscribed discrimination is at play in which case claims can be unlimited.

The rules for ships might be more lax (I don't know).

Regardless disposing of (non-pregnant) people in the UK is far too cheap whether or not you do it legally.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The process starts with the calculations you suggest. However, the process can continue and could lead to a maximum 12 months salary. I can’t find the actual legislation again at the moment, but there is this.

I was merely trying to suggest the outer limit P&O will have considered when coming up with a compensation package. On the other hand they will have also factored in that many workers will accept the offer and forego their right to further legal proceedings, as seems to be happening.

Anything our government promises will come too late for those who have accepted the P&O deal while the remainder will have to have more faith in government promises than I have.
 
There needs to be more genuine jeopardy for officers of a company. Board members ought to be personally liable if a company does something unlawful on their watch. It happens in health and safety legislation, why not also in employment law? At the least, directors who preside over such things should be barred from operating as directors for a period, and be required to disclose any such disbarments to future employers.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
There needs to be more genuine jeopardy for officers of a company. Board members ought to be personally liable if a company does something unlawful on their watch. It happens in health and safety legislation, why not also in employment law? At the least, directors who preside over such things should be barred from operating as directors for a period, and be required to disclose any such disbarments to future employers.
Click to expand...
It does happen in employment law. But only to trade unions, where assets may be seized in the event of unlawful action and (I think) leaders can be held personally responsible for any damage that arises from the action.
 
droodzilla said:
It does happen in employment law. But only to trade unions, where assets may be seized in the event of unlawful action and (I think) leaders can be held personally responsible for any damage that arises from the action.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s call that a precedent and expand the scope, hey?
 
Are the penalties for such actions prescribed and limited? It occurs that with the right political will the government would have a range of measures available to it, such as denying access to British territorial waters or docking at British ports.
 
kensalriser said:
Are the penalties for such actions prescribed and limited? It occurs that with the right political will the government would have a range of measures available to it, such as denying access to British territorial waters or docking at British ports.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head, this is about political will. If our government had the political will to enforce employment law, or justice, they would. The truth is that this government’s will is ideologically opposed to worker’s rights
 
Good Morning All,

This issue of holding management of shipping to account is long standing.

Going back to the Herald of Free Enterprise all attempts to hold somebody in management accountable failed (to cut a long story short).

Has there been a successful prosecution under the corporate manslaughter charge in any industry yet?

Has there been a successful prosecution under the TUPE regulations in the shipping industry?

As I may have stated previously BP made us all redundant under near identical circumstances back in January 1986. This was announced on the 6 o' clock evening news.

Regards

Richard
 
Below is letter from my local MP in response to my asking if P&O had notified the Secretary of State re redundancies. He didn’t answer that question, but here is response as promised

Thank you for contacting me about P&O Ferries' treatment of its employees.

I was, like you, shocked at the extreme and callous treatment demonstrated by P&O Ferries in its decision to make 800 employees redundant by pre-recorded video message.

Be assured that ministerial colleagues are thoroughly examining the actions of P&O Ferries to determine the legality of this action.

Moreover, the Secretary of State for Transport has announced the government's intention to review all contracts it has with P&O Ferries and its parent company, DP World. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has also been instructed to inspect all P&O Ferries vessels prior to any return to sea.

The government takes these matters very seriously. I am pleased it has confirmed its intention to bring forward an Employment Bill and create a new single enforcement body for employment rights which would bring together three existing workplace rights enforcement bodies into a single, recognisable organisation tasked with protecting workers from unlawful practices.

I will continue to monitor this matter as it develops.

Very best regards

John​
 
ks.234 said:
That would be illegal in the UK
Click to expand...

Given the Tory attitude to law-breaking whenever it suits them I’d not give a crap if I was a union. This sort of action is needed IMO. As stated upthread I’d certainly support mass action. I’d even close the site for a day in solidarity if I felt it would help (though I like to think we can do more damage to Johnson and his bunch of crooks with it open and providing whatever scrutiny we can!).
 
ks.234 said:
That would be illegal in the UK
Click to expand...
Perhaps it ought to be more widely appreciated that the unions here are so emasculated that they can’t legally mount that sort of protest action in solidarity. There’s a lot of public support for the P&O staff, and action like the Rotterdam stuff resonates with people. Imagine if those same people understood that successive Tory ‘reforms’ had made such things illegal here.
 
ks.234 said:
That would be illegal in the UK
Click to expand...
What if unions were to take a leaf out of the multinational rule book and set up shop in some sort off-shore paradise, where they could stash their assets etc. out of the reach of UK law? They would of course keep a nominal entity in the UK, without any assets worth going after. In case of trouble, fold that local entity and set up a new one under a slightly different name. Etc.
 
PsB said:
What if unions were to take a leaf out of the multinational rule book and set up shop in some sort off-shore paradise, where they could stash their assets etc. out of the reach of UK law? They would of course keep a nominal entity in the UK, without any assets worth going after. In case of trouble, fold that local entity and set up a new one under a slightly different name. Etc.
Click to expand...
The Sunak Co?
 
Tony L said:
Given the Tory attitude to law-breaking whenever it suits them I’d not give a crap if I was a union. This sort of action is needed IMO. As stated upthread I’d certainly support mass action. I’d even close the site for a day in solidarity if I felt it would help (though I like to think we can do more damage to Johnson and his bunch of crooks with it open and providing whatever scrutiny we can!).
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree, but it isn’t just the law but enforcement of it that counts. We have seen the police be extremely reluctant to pursue Johnson for breaking a law of his own making, but I suspect the courts would quite keen to sequester the funds of a union taking secondary action.

On the subject of mass support, if my experience ‘down the pub’ today is anything to go by, there isn’t any. We’ve had a bin strike around here which means we’ve missed one bin collection and people are up in arms, and all that P&O shows is how useless bloody unions are dunnit. The general tone, while in support of the P&O workers, was still anti union. Pointing out that what happened to P&O workers is a direct consequence of eroding union rights by our government and our own attitude to strike action did not go down well and it became a conversation I had to withdraw from (see, Droodzilla, I’m learning).

Not sure what the answer is, but it sure ain’t here in Tory central
 
PsB said:
What if unions were to take a leaf out of the multinational rule book and set up shop in some sort off-shore paradise, where they could stash their assets etc. out of the reach of UK law? They would of course keep a nominal entity in the UK, without any assets worth going after. In case of trouble, fold that local entity and set up a new one under a slightly different name. Etc.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is that unions have to demonstrate where their money comes from and goes to and that money is minutely scrutinised to the extent that an individual lay caseworker such as me was liable to have their union phone records examined for personal calls and if there were any, the union accused of misusing membership money. If a quick phone call to the missus is deemed criminal*, any money that ‘disappeared’ abroad would, I suspect, bring the death penalty

A shame our chancellors and Tory Party donors are not held to such high principles, but….

*didn’t happen to me, but we were warned in the most dramatic terms of the consequences. A pain in the arse having to carry two phones around all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top